Nudge someone to pay

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite annotations indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds critical behavioral context: it posts a visible comment, requires user confirmation, and explicitly says 'Nothing is posted until confirmed.' This goes beyond the annotations and fully discloses the side effect and confirmation step.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and includes essential caveats (visibility and confirmation) without wasted words. It is efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the full workflow (draft, confirm, post), the visibility, and the critical confirmation step. Nothing essential is missing, and the output schema handles return values, so completeness is high.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75%, and the schema already describes friend, message, and group_id with clear meanings. The description mentions tone and message override, but these are already in the schema. It does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool drafts a reminder and posts it as a comment on a shared expense, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like settle_up or explain_balance by focusing on the nudge action, so the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description specifies the use case ('someone who owes you') and the action (post as comment after confirmation), which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.